yeah, that trade has been suggested a bunch of times. It's not unrealistic though, which is what makes it cool. It depends pretty much on what happens Tuesday and whether or not BC wants to add two rookies to what is already a super-young team.

If the Raptors can get Kanter AND Irving, I'd give up everyone but Davis, DeRozan and Amir. That would be sweet.

Same. And I really don't think there'd be a problem with having too young a team. You can always add vets like Udoka, Elson, etc on minimum salaries. The idea of having a core group of only players still on their rookie scale contracts or on minimum salaries appeals greatly to me (would have to find a taker for Bargnani, Calderon and Kleiza though). Then we can fill our entire cap space with free agents when we're ready to contend like Chicago did over the summer, and when our rookie scale contracts transition to their extension salaries, we'll no longer have to worry about people complaining that we don't have a $80 mil payroll. =)

Maybe over 82 games Bayless wouldn't be that much better than Calderon...but he would still be better and that makes the team better and gives us more wins...so given this stats from j bean and given the defense he plays (which is not seen in the stats) I would prefer Bayless as my starting pg.And most importantly he has shown constant improvement and he ain't so injury prone like Calderon.

I reaaaaly don't see where you go from the 14 game sample to "Maybe over 82 games Bayless wouldn't be that much better than Calderon." There's no way you can take those stats and say it supports a conclusion that Bayless would still be better over 82 games. Mind you, I'm a Bayless fan and realize that Calderon isn't our PG of the future, but some of the conclusions being drawn here are just unfounded.

If you look at Calderon's numbers, it says the team scored less and was scored on more when he was on the bench (not necessarily to say that Calderon's absence is the reason their defense suffered, but we'll look at more of that in my next set of numbers). Bayless' numbers seem to support that. The team did score less and was scored on more when he was on the floor. Some of you might say, "well, Calderon spent more time with the starting unit, that's why," but let me remind you that it has always been argued that Calderon had better numbers than Jack because he was playing against other teams' second units. Plus, the starting unit has Bargnani, and he's supposed to be our worst defensive player, right?

This is hardly conclusive though since we don't know who was on the floor with them, so we now look at the #1 most used floor unit and how it compared when Bayless manned the point:

Unfortunately, Bayless didn't really play that much with our starters and what might be our starting lineups next year, despite the way j bean/maleko's stats made it sound. The 21 minutes he did play with Amir and Ed went well on the offensive end, not so great on the defensive end, but again, it should say something that his playing time with DeRozan, J.Johnson, Bargnani and one of Amir or Ed was so insignificant it didn't even exceed 16 minutes the entire season.

The point of all this isn't that Calderon > Bayless or vice versa, but that the so-called objective stats given in the earlier post just cannot be accepted as supporting anything. The sample size is just TOO small. It's no different from if I were to say, Calderon-DeRozan-Kleiza-Johnson-Dorsey was our best floor unit (1.10 : 0.99 over 35.7 min), so Kleiza is a good starting SF and Dorsey is a good starting center.

Same. And I really don't think there'd be a problem with having too young a team. You can always add vets like Udoka, Elson, etc on minimum salaries. The idea of having a core group of only players still on their rookie scale contracts or on minimum salaries appeals greatly to me (would have to find a taker for Bargnani, Calderon and Kleiza though). Then we can fill our entire cap space with free agents when we're ready to contend like Chicago did over the summer, and when our rookie scale contracts transition to their extension salaries, we'll no longer have to worry about people complaining that we don't have a $80 mil payroll. =)

If BC was on board with trading Bargnani, Calderone and Kleiza that is a lot of salary and how can you swing it without bringing older players back?

Great job.Thank you for showing black on white why and how better Bayless was.

footarez wrote:

[...] no wonder our team sucks...with such decisions based not on performance but on...salary or just affection.

Because it's so much better to base such decisions on small samples of "black and white" individual performance. By the way, our team was 1.121 offensive ppp and 1.022 defensive ppp when David Andersen was on the floor. Without him, we were 1.067 offensive ppp and 1.146 defensive ppp. Plus, he held opposing centers to a defensive stopper worthy 13.0 PER.

I'm going to thank myself for showing black and white how amazing Andersen was, especially since I used team and not individual performance. If our team doesn't re-acquire him immediately and lock him up long term as our center of the future, no wonder our team sucks.

Great job.Thank you for showing black on white why and how better Bayless was.

j bean wrote:

If BC was on board with trading Bargnani, Calderone and Kleiza that is a lot of salary and how can you swing it without bringing older players back?

Uh, it was a hypothetical "I wish" scenario. it's going to be very, very difficult to trade someone who is injured and didn't exactly light it up when he was "healthy" (Kleiza). As for the other two, if we were certain we could land someone like Chris Paul, I don't think it would be very hard to dump them for nothing but salary relief (we almost traded Calderon for what could have been cap relief, lest you forget). It's just not in our best interest to do so with no guarantee of finding replacements via FA.

I came up with a trade in the Trade Forum and then Shantz tweaked it to make the improbable slightly more probable.

I'll warn you though, it involves trading Calderon, lol.

BTW, as useless and trivial as it is to try and come up with trades that will most likely never happen, this is even more useless and trivial until Tuesday.

A fun exercise though is to have different people represent different teams. They must get familiar with their team's payroll, cap outlook, etc., and they're not allowed to think about the trade in any sense other than whether they would do it for the team they're representing. Whenever I'm reading trade suggestions, I couldn't care less why the Raptors would do it. It's almost always a moot point.

That said, you know your trade is a good one because Hollinger's trade machine thinks nobody benefits from it. I keed, I keed.

A fun exercise though is to have different people represent different teams. They must get familiar with their team's payroll, cap outlook, etc., and they're not allowed to think about the trade in any sense other than whether they would do it for the team they're representing. Whenever I'm reading trade suggestions, I couldn't care less why the Raptors would do it. It's almost always a moot point.

That said, you know your trade is a good one because Hollinger's trade machine thinks nobody benefits from it. I keed, I keed.

While a Raps fan, and I most definitely have put a couple of trades in the Trade Forum that were Raptors-biased, I do try to stay as impartial as possible and I do attempt to look at the moves from the things you mentioned (cap space, payroll, future outlook).

I think the trade I suggested, Shantz tweak, and a subsequent four team trade (TOR/MIN/SAC/DEN) that I just added are all reasonable for each team. If I am incorrect in this, feel free to offer input.

While a Raps fan, and I most definitely have put a couple of trades in the Trade Forum that were Raptors-biased, I do try to stay as impartial as possible and I do attempt to look at the moves from the things you mentioned (cap space, payroll, future outlook).

I think the trade I suggested, Shantz tweak, and a subsequent four team trade (TOR/MIN/SAC/DEN) that I just added are all reasonable for each team. If I am incorrect in this, feel free to offer input.

Anything larger than a three-team trade hurts my head, so I think I'll pass on that one.

The #1 reason the three-team trade wouldn't work is because Tim W. and I have already agreed that Bargnani needs to be traded to the Hornets, after which they'll promptly move to Vancouver.

Seriously though, I don't need to bother with the Toronto aspect (except I don't think Kanter will be around at #5), and the Minnesota aspect (in the Shantz tweak) looks fine/realistic. I'm balking a bit at the Sacramento portion though (if I'm reading it correctly, I'm trading the 5th overall pick, Thompson, Casspi and Garcia, and getting back Bargnani, Bayless, the 20th overall pick and Webster). Not because I think it's unreasonable, but because most GMs prefer their own prospects to someone else's. As a Raptors fan, I have high hope for Bayless, but as a non-Raptors fan, I think I'd try to eek a bit more out of Toronto, like the right to swap picks in either the 2012 or 2013 draft, my choice. Would you, as the Raptors GM, go for that? =P

Because it's so much better to base such decisions on small samples of "black and white" individual performance. By the way, our team was 1.121 offensive ppp and 1.022 defensive ppp when David Andersen was on the floor. Without him, we were 1.067 offensive ppp and 1.146 defensive ppp. Plus, he held opposing centers to a defensive stopper worthy 13.0 PER.

I'm going to thank myself for showing black and white how amazing Andersen was, especially since I used team and not individual performance. If our team doesn't re-acquire him immediately and lock him up long term as our center of the future, no wonder our team sucks.

As a Raptors fan I enjoy a post that brings a different line of thought or an opposing argument to what I think and quite often I'm persuaded to change my view on things when I hear something that makes a lot of sense. To me using stats really isn't the most compelling way of doing that though of course they have a place. I posted the Calderone-
Bayless comparison stats because I was surprised when I first saw them at how in every category except assists Bayless was better as a starter. Way more trips to the stripe, way more points, more efficient shooting and less turnovers. True it was only 14 games but having watched all of those games it was obvious to me that Jose had become boring and it was exciting to see a young guy like Bayless play at a higher level.
By the way I love your sarcasm and a condescending attitude. It really makes you appear more convincing.

As a Raptors fan I enjoy a post that brings a different line of thought or an opposing argument to what I think and quite often I'm persuaded to change my view on things when I hear something that makes a lot of sense. To me using stats really isn't the most compelling way of doing that though of course they have a place. I posted the Calderone-
Bayless comparison stats because I was surprised when I first saw them at how in every category except assists Bayless was better as a starter. Way more trips to the stripe, way more points, more efficient shooting and less turnovers. True it was only 14 games but having watched all of those games it was obvious to me that Jose had become boring and it was exciting to see a young guy like Bayless play at a higher level.
By the way I love your sarcasm and a condescending attitude. It really makes you appear more convincing.

Sometimes the wall of text method gets a bit boring. Sarcasm and condescending attitude saves me from having to write a novella, and saves you all from having to read it. :-p

As I said before, I like Bayless. I was very high on getting him from the Hornets. I consider him part of our young core. But you can always find small samples of stats to show any one player is better than another.

Anything larger than a three-team trade hurts my head, so I think I'll pass on that one.

The #1 reason the three-team trade wouldn't work is because Tim W. and I have already agreed that Bargnani needs to be traded to the Hornets, after which they'll promptly move to Vancouver.

Seriously though, I don't need to bother with the Toronto aspect (except I don't think Kanter will be around at #5), and the Minnesota aspect (in the Shantz tweak) looks fine/realistic. I'm balking a bit at the Sacramento portion though (if I'm reading it correctly, I'm trading the 5th overall pick, Thompson, Casspi and Garcia, and getting back Bargnani, Bayless, the 20th overall pick and Webster). Not because I think it's unreasonable, but because most GMs prefer their own prospects to someone else's. As a Raptors fan, I have high hope for Bayless, but as a non-Raptors fan, I think I'd try to eek a bit more out of Toronto, like the right to swap picks in either the 2012 or 2013 draft, my choice. Would you, as the Raptors GM, go for that? =P

The four team trade is pretty straight-forward - the key is to always remember salaries going out and coming back must always be within 125% + 100K plus any available cap space for teams with a payroll under $58M.

I'd go for anything that delivered Kanter and Irving while keeping ED, DD, and Amir and a 2012 first round pick including swapping picks with SAC.

The four team trade is pretty straight-forward - the key is to always remember salaries going out and coming back must always be within 125% + 100K plus any available cap space for teams with a payroll under $58M.

I'd go for anything that delivered Kanter and Irving while keeping ED, DD, and Amir and a 2012 first round pick including swapping picks with SAC.

Haha, not sure how remembering that "key" helps. Besides, four-team trades happen so rarely in real life, it's almost total fantasy land. =P

I guess it's a deal then? I guess as a Raptors fan I would do it too, but you never know if it'll come back to bite us in the ass. If we're still a high lottery pick in the next two years and Sacramento isn't, we might be wishing we had that top 4 pick rather than their late lottery.

Haha, not sure how remembering that "key" helps. Besides, four-team trades happen so rarely in real life, it's almost total fantasy land. =P

I guess it's a deal then? I guess as a Raptors fan I would do it too, but you never know if it'll come back to bite us in the ass. If we're still a high lottery pick in the next two years and Sacramento isn't, we might be wishing we had that top 4 pick rather than their late lottery.

The financial numbers are usually what causes the issues in trades in the NBA. If each team is addressing the needs of their team, then 3,4,5 teams shouldn't make a difference. Obviously 4 team trades are uncommon but they are not impossible if everyone feels they are bettering their own team. BOS/MIA/UTA/NOH in 2005, ORL/NJ/TOR/DAL in 2008, IND/ATL/NOH/MIA last year are off the top of my head. A little further checking and PHX/SEA/NYK/LAL in 2000. Colangelo was involved in 2 and he was involved in an 8 player deal, three team deal as well.

You raise a good point on the lottery pick but with Irving, DD, ED, and Kanter in the starting lineup and Garcia/JJ/Amir on the bench, a starting SF is the only position of need and there are going to be a number of good SF's available next year. Also, the 4 team deal would not require any further incentive for SAC, in my opinion.

The financial numbers are usually what causes the issues in trades in the NBA. If each team is addressing the needs of their team, then 3,4,5 teams shouldn't make a difference. Obviously 4 team trades are uncommon but they are not impossible if everyone feels they are bettering their own team. BOS/MIA/UTA/NOH in 2005, ORL/NJ/TOR/DAL in 2008, IND/ATL/NOH/MIA last year are off the top of my head. A little further checking and PHX/SEA/NYK/LAL in 2000. Colangelo was involved in 2 and he was involved in an 8 player deal, three team deal as well.

You raise a good point on the lottery pick but with Irving, DD, ED, and Kanter in the starting lineup and Garcia/JJ/Amir on the bench, a starting SF is the only position of need and there are going to be a number of good SF's available next year. Also, the 4 team deal would not require any further incentive for SAC, in my opinion.

Yeah, sorry, that's not what I meant about headache. I'm fluent with cap-related issues, but just don't want to bother thinking about whether it makes sense for more than 3 teams. It doesn't seem like much until you factor in the billion trade suggestions and rumors each year.